Mr. Speaker, one of the men wanted in the torture slaying of Sylvain Leduc was on parole at the time of the killing and wanted on a Canada-wide warrant.

John Richardson was on mandatory release from Millhaven penitentiary after serving just two-thirds of his sentence.

Reform has been asking for the elimination of mandatory release but our pleas and the pleas of many Canadians and victims of violent crimes have fallen on deaf ears.

My question is for the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General of Canada. In view of the murders of Sylvain Leduc and Melanie Carpenter, also murdered by an offender on statutory release, why will he not move immediately to eliminate mandatory release?

Herb GrayLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend in beginning his question said that the individual in question was on parole. The person in question was not on parole. He had not been released pursuant to any decision of the parole board.

Instead, as the hon. member said later in his question, the individual was on mandatory release. The conditions in the law for the automatic sending of the person's case to the parole board for a detention hearing had not been met because the person's original offence did not involve crimes of violence or drugs.

With respect to the basic point he is making, most of the people on mandatory release are not involved in further offences. Experience has shown that a controlled period of supervision at the end of a sentence is the best way of ensuring that there are not further offences, something I hope the hon. member will support. I hope he will support measures designed to avoid further offences rather than steps that might create more.

Mr. Speaker, John Richardson was denied parole not once but twice because the parole board said: "There is indication of behaviour that demonstrates a potential to commit an offence involving violence".

When Richardson was released by statutory requirement conditions were attached because: "You remain a high risk to reoffend". This evidence clearly indicates that the death of Sylvain Leduc could have been prevented.

When will the minister move to eliminate mandatory release to keep dangerous offenders locked up? When?

Herb GrayLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, at this point the individual in question is wanted for questioning. Charges have not yet been laid against him.

The hon. member is jumping to conclusions which may or may not turn out to be correct. At the same time he is raising an understandable concern which I share. However the point he is making with respect to the absolute abolition of mandatory supervision does not fit in with reality. The best way to help ensure further offences do not take place is to have people under a form of supervision and controlled release into the community so that they will not do things that are likely to lead to further offences. Most cases of mandatory supervision turn out well and tragic incidents are the exception rather than the rule.

There is a provision in the law whereby if a person is considered to be likely to carry out further offences and certain conditions are met the case can be referred to the parole board for a hearing which can lead to the person's detention to the end of sentence. Unfortunately the conditions were not met because the person's original conviction was not for one of the offences in schedule one or two.

The hon. member calls for changes in the law. This can certainly be considered. If we present changes to the law I hope he will co-operate in ways that protect public safety rather than simply making a lot of noise about it.

This week the House has been debating at second reading an act to implement an agreement concerning Canada's internal trade. Certainly in the province of Ontario members of the business community and consumers strongly support the legislation because it is good for our economy.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Another economic study last week indicated that the provinces of Canada do twenty times the business among themselves they do with the United States, once differences in size and distance are taken into account.

This reveals the importance of internal trade for jobs and Canada's economic growth.

In trying to make the internal market work better in Canada, it would be very helpful in the context of the current debate if some members of the House were less concerned about what powers are exercised in what capitals and more concerned about looking at ways to make the internal market of Canada work better to create jobs and opportunity for Canadians across the country.

Like the rest of us, the Minister of Finance noted the profound desire for change in the referendum. He is obviously very attuned to the question of public finances.

I wonder whether the Minister of Finance might not use this opportunity to put forward a national plan to the country to eliminate the public deficit and debt with objectives we could all support and joint deadlines and whether now is not a singular time to do so for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Paul MartinMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is entirely right to talk of a desire for change that is reflected right across the country, from Atlantic to Pacific. He should know that this very thing was discussed at the last two meetings of the country's finance ministers. I agree with him totally about what must be done, namely, drawing up a federal-provincial master plan with very clear objectives of consolidating public finances at both levels of government.

I can also tell him that the provinces have made a lot of progress, with one exception, perhaps, and that the federal government is now on the right track. We will have to continue in this vein, and I hope all the provinces will take part.

Peter MillikenParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 97th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been circulating all across Canada. This particular petition has been signed by a number of Canadians from Langley, B.C.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.